131–140 of 375 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12129860 and marked it off-topic.
I have no idea what NDT has to do with anything but this seems like a level-headed, fair reply that is indeed on-topic. What is off-topic about it?
> I don't think those guys were bad people, I don't think they sat there in their minds thinking, "let's tear the woman down". I really don't think they thought about it at all Yes, they are bad people, and the fact that they didn't have to think about going out of there way to tear someone down is part of why they are bad people. They didn't have to think about "let's tear the woman down" because they were already a…
You're reaching here, and it damages the rest of your post. No one person is responsible for the weight of the societal programming that we all share. (Mind, some of the strongest defenders of patriarchy are women.) Recognizing our unconscious biases and working to counteract them is part of the job of being good, but for many people, especially those whose circles don't bring them in contact with people working in social activism, there really is a "too big to see" aspect to it.
Derision doesn't work (though sometimes it's more fun than it should be), and I've tried to swear off the tactic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Policing speech like that just breeds resentment. You not only guaranteed that these people later made the same comments to each other in private, but also inched a bit closer to resenting people like you and your entire cause. Mind your own business. You have no right to interfere in a conversation among friends, even one that triggers you. If you want to encourage change in the world, be the change and set an examp…
What? OF COURSE he has a right to interfere, he can say whatever he damn well pleases. Furthermore, all he said was to knock it off; you seem to imply he lectured them or something similar. He set an example by demonstrating their behavior was not socially acceptable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Forgetting these folks don't have the institutional power to harm others. Really? I'd say an accusation from those groups can ruin a career.
whose career ? Name one.
I don't have more time to figure out the guy's name but his HN username is mr-hank: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5398681
Personal story time...I was at a recent conference, listening to men, women given talks. One of the women, in her talk, uses an interaction with her daughter as the framing narrative for the talk (imagine Socrates and Glaucon, only this woman and her daughter). Almost immediately, three guys to my right start making fun of the speaker, sotto voce, making all manner of little jokes to themselves, that are becoming inc…
I'm not entirely sure you can tell if this group was biased or not with this one interaction with them. As you mentioned: > I also don't think they'd have sat there, chattering away, if a man had used the same framing story (father and son, father and daughter). If you didn't observe them sit quietly for a talk before this given by a man, who's to say they didn't just do this to every presenter (man or woman) for the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is no less sexist to form a women's only club, but nobody sees fit to criticize it. It is not -ist if a disadvantaged group does something to counteract its disadvantage without considering the privileged group. If women are disadvantaged, it is reasonable to do something to fix their disadvantage without having to interject "but what about men!?" So, for example, Ubuntu/Debian/Arch Women groups are not sexist a…
>If women are disadvantaged Except they're not. In fact, in tech, they're advantaged. Female names on resumes get more callback than male names. This has been studied. The reason there are fewer of them is because fewer of them are interested.
Here's why I believe that women are disadvantaged in tech: Women in tech are part of an out-group, just by being in the minority. This necessarily puts them at a disadvantage. We know that women make less than men in most environments. Acquiring a job more easily is one thing - sure, if I assume you're telling the truth, women get more callbacks. But consider the prospects after initial employment. It is not as simple as "women are more employable in the tech industry" - it needs to also be the case that women are making equal pay, given equal opportunity to advance their careers, and are expected to do equal work.
I guess what I mean to say is that it feels like you're doing exactly what we should not do with complex social issues: oversimplifying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just dumb. It would be one thing if they were having a quiet conversation among themselves whispering back and forth and were told to stop. But clearly OP could hear them, they weren't being quiet. And allowing such behavior to go on where people can clearly hear it is the same thing as condoning it. That's besides the fact that if you're going to act like that during a talk, you shouldn't be in the room anywa…
> allowing such behavior to go on where people can clearly hear it is the same thing as condoning it Toleration is what allows people who have different views to work together toward common goals. You can't have civilization without it, because no two people will agree on everything. If these people were really as boorish as the OP described, the best approach would have been to let them embarrass themselves. What's…
Allowing people to be sexist jerks (let's not dress it up as "boorish") doesn't just let them "embarrass" themselves, it creates an effect within a subculture that gives that activity preferential status because few people want to use their limited public credibility to counteract it--thereby over time letting sexist behavior become the expected norm of that subculture. That's not OK, and speaking up directly confronts the issue and prevents it from becoming a social norm, or becoming further entrenched because we live in a profoundly sexist society to begin with, in that subculture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is no less sexist to form a women's only club, but nobody sees fit to criticize it. It is not -ist if a disadvantaged group does something to counteract its disadvantage without considering the privileged group. If women are disadvantaged, it is reasonable to do something to fix their disadvantage without having to interject "but what about men!?" So, for example, Ubuntu/Debian/Arch Women groups are not sexist a…
>If women are disadvantaged Except they're not. In fact, in tech, they're advantaged. Female names on resumes get more callback than male names. This has been studied. The reason there are fewer of them is because fewer of them are interested.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Forgetting these folks don't have the institutional power to harm others. Really? I'd say an accusation from those groups can ruin a career.
whose career ? Name one.